Annuals Vs engine change

philiplane said:
If the IA signed each each airframe, engine, and propeller logbook with individual entries using the "airframe annual", "engine annual", and "propeller annual", then each of those has distinct annual sign offs and expirations. If he signed the airframe logbook with the phrase "aircraft annual" instead of airframe, then each part does not require a separate annual sign off. Semantics, but important ones.
Installing an overhauled engine (not the one that was on the plane at the aircraft annual) requires that the engine have an annual inspection of its own recorded in its logbook, since it has not been documented to meet the annual inspection requirements prior to installation on the airframe in question.
Click to expand...

:dunno:

Can you please show some sort of reference for that??? :rolleyes:

Do you apply the same "logic" to magnetos? Alternator? Starter? :dunno:
 
Tom-D said:
Who said that? or are you twisting the readings to fit your demeanor.
Click to expand...
so....who determines the airworthiness of a set of used mags that get installed 2 weeks after the annual? Who verifies that all ADs were complied with on those used mags?

Does the airplane need a new annual for that?

...then how is an engine or prop R&R any different?
 
RotorAndWing said:
:dunno:

Can you please show some sort of reference for that??? :rolleyes:

Do you apply the same "logic" to magnetos? Alternator? Starter? :dunno:
Click to expand...
The company that made the altenator starter or magnetos are parts on the engine they did not make the engine. Same as wings tail of the airframe are parts of the manufacture of the airframe other parts like instruments are installed on it.
 
brien23 said:
The company that made the altenator starter or magnetos are parts on the engine they did not make the engine. Same as wings tail of the airframe are parts of the manufacture of the airframe other parts like instruments are installed on it.
Click to expand...

Seriously, do you actually hold an A&P? :eek:
 
philiplane said:
If the IA signed each each airframe, engine, and propeller logbook with individual entries using the "airframe annual", "engine annual", and "propeller annual", then each of those has distinct annual sign offs and expirations. If he signed the airframe logbook with the phrase "aircraft annual" instead of airframe, then each part does not require a separate annual sign off. Semantics, but important ones.

Installing an overhauled engine (not the one that was on the plane at the aircraft annual) requires that the engine have an annual inspection of its own recorded in its logbook, since it has not been documented to meet the annual inspection requirements prior to installation on the airframe in question.
Click to expand...

Read FAR 91.409 and tell me where it says any thing about annulling any engine.
Then read FAR 43.11 Para (4) and tell me where is uses the word engine in the recommended term used to sign off the annual on An Aircraft.

Any A&P-IA that is signing off the way you described by placing the sign off in all logs is far and beyond the recommended method taught at almost every IA seminar.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so....who determines the airworthiness of a set of used mags that get installed 2 weeks after the annual? Who verifies that all ADs were complied with on those used mags?

Does the airplane need a new annual for that?

...then how is an engine or prop R&R any different?
Click to expand...

Tom isn't claiming the IA needs to sign it.
 
Tom-D said:
Read FAR 91.409 and tell me where it says any thing about annulling any engine.
Then read FAR 43.11 Para (4) and tell me where is uses the word engine in the recommended term used to sign off the annual on An Aircraft.

Any A&P-IA that is signing off the way you described by placing the sign off in all logs is far and beyond the recommended method taught at almost every IA seminar.
Click to expand...

However I have always had engine log books with annual stamps signed off...:dunno: I'm not arguing that a requirement exists, just that the belief in it exists at all levels.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so....who determines the airworthiness of a set of used mags that get installed 2 weeks after the annual? Who verifies that all ADs were complied with on those used mags?

Does the airplane need a new annual for that?

...then how is an engine or prop R&R any different?
Click to expand...

Answer this " was it airworthy when you signed the annual off" ? the IA doesn't give a crap after that.
 
Out of curiosity, does any of the software used to do the computer generated labels give the option to produce a 'engine annual' label?
 
Henning said:
However I have always had engine log books with annual stamps signed off...:dunno: I'm not arguing that a requirement exists, just that the belief in it exists at all levels.
Click to expand...

And that is what most of the thread is about.

It is a Old Wives Tale that all logs that make up any aircraft must have a sign off in them.

It's not illegal, but not needed either.
 
Is this on that Stinson 108-uhh you're fumbling around with?

image.jpg
 
James331 said:
Is this on that Stinson 108-uhh you're fumbling around with?
Click to expand...

No. A big no. read the thread, I already told you why I posted this.

Some people don't like what I tell them, but they read this page.

OBTW there is no fumbling going on. Or was that statement just a snideass remark to get a Pizzing contest going ?
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
And that is what most of the thread is about.

It is a Old Wives Tale that all logs that make up any aircraft must have a sign off in them.

It's not illegal, but not needed either.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, but not as interesting as watching Phd aerodynamics guys arguing whether Bernouli is an effect of its own or an observation of the reactions of Newtonian physics.:rofl: That had to be one of the funniest arguments I ever saw.:lol: They were getting close to fighting.:rofl:

I never really cared about the whole logging thing, I paid, I have at least one signature for the aircraft to show the FAA, I'm happy with whatever.
 
Henning said:
Out of curiosity, does any of the software used to do the computer generated labels give the option to produce a 'engine annual' label?
Click to expand...

I use the Avery label maker, you can say anything you want on the sticky. and print them in sheets if you like.
 
Tom-D said:
I use the Avery label maker, you can say anything you want on the sticky. and print them in sheets if you like.
Click to expand...

So you don't use any of the preformatted entries that some of the software contains?
 
Henning said:
So you don't use any of the preformatted entries that some of the software contains?
Click to expand...

No, I may write the whole return to service and the annual phrase and AD compliance all on one 3X5" label.

For whole sheets that have the common text, (like a simply ELT inspection) I never place the N number, times or dates, the sticky goes in the write up space, and the time, date all that goes in the columns to the left.
 
Tom-D said:
No, I may write the whole return to service and the annual phrase and AD compliance all on one 3X5" label.

For whole sheets that have the common text, (like a simply ELT inspection) I never place the N number, times or dates, the sticky goes in the write up space, and the time, date all that goes in the columns to the left.
Click to expand...

Got it. I was wondering if the commercial aircraft Maint software companies were continuing with the differentiation of engine entry like the stamps did. Would there be any reason for the option under 135 or 121?:dunno:
 
Henning said:
Got it. I was wondering if the commercial aircraft Maint software companies were continuing with the differentiation of engine entry like the stamps did. Would there be any reason for the option under 135 or 121?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Don't know don't care, I do not subscribe to any Service.
 
Henning said:
Got it. I was wondering if the commercial aircraft Maint software companies were continuing with the differentiation of engine entry like the stamps did. Would there be any reason for the option under 135 or 121?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Nothing operating under 121 would have an annual inspection.
 
But where did the misconception come from that it is so pervasive across the industry still today?:dunno:
 
Henning said:
But where did the misconception come from that it is so pervasive across the industry still today?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Considering that we were chastised by a FSDO maintenance inspector during a 135 inspection, I'd say that the FAA themselves have a part in this. That maintenance inspector specifically chewed out the chief mechanic for not having an annual inspection entry in the airframe, engine, and propeller logbooks.

Because of this, we put the entries in all the logbooks. Is it required? I'd say no but that isn't what the local guys want to see.
 
mondtster said:
Considering that we were chastised by a FSDO maintenance inspector during a 135 inspection, I'd say that the FAA themselves have a part in this. That maintenance inspector specifically chewed out the chief mechanic for not having an annual inspection entry in the airframe, engine, and propeller logbooks.

Because of this, we put the entries in all the logbooks. Is it required? I'd say no but that isn't what the local guys want to see.
Click to expand...

See, this is like the othe thread where ATC told a pilot he had an implied clearance into Class B, where everything we are taught about Class B from day one says "There is No implied clearance into B, you must have a specific clearance."

It's really not a big deal in the long run, nothing really to fuss over. First off, the likelihood of anything coming out of one of these situations besides above said bitching is exceeding low, and if it does escalate, I have valid arguments to defend my position.

In the end, even if worst went to stupid, the outcome will have no lasting impact or monetary cost. People have been shaking their fingers at me and slapping my wrist all my life, just play the game and that's where it stays. Live smart my friend, life is easier that way.
 
Tom-D said:
Remember the last sentence of the airworthy statement?

" and in a condition for safe operation"

With out the engine installed, it simply isn't.

so the discrepancy list given to the owner, has the missing engine as one of the discrepancies, when installed and returned to service the aircraft becomes safe to operate thus airworthy.
Click to expand...

What you say is certainly true but so is what I wrote. Airworthiness requires two conditions, conformance with its type design (or properly altered condition) and in a condition for safe operation.
An airframe without an engine meets neither condition for airworthiness. An airframe with the wrong engine installed (not an engine listed on the TCDS or STCd for the airframe) may be in a condition for safe operation but not airworthy because it's illegal without an approved STC to allow installation.
 
Last edited:
Witmo said:
Inspection Authorization also. Double :eek:
Click to expand...

add,,,,
Biography
Comercial, Instrument, CFII, SEL, MEL, SES, Helicopter, Glider, Hot air Balloon, A&P / IA, GROL with Radar endorsement .
 
mondtster said:
Considering that we were chastised by a FSDO maintenance inspector during a 135 inspection, I'd say that the FAA themselves have a part in this. That maintenance inspector specifically chewed out the chief mechanic for not having an annual inspection entry in the airframe, engine, and propeller logbooks.

Because of this, we put the entries in all the logbooks. Is it required? I'd say no but that isn't what the local guys want to see.
Click to expand...

Oh, is there specific wording in 135 that requires it? That may be where it comes from, people bleeding it into 91.
 
mondtster said:
Considering that we were chastised by a FSDO maintenance inspector during a 135 inspection, I'd say that the FAA themselves have a part in this. That maintenance inspector specifically chewed out the chief mechanic for not having an annual inspection entry in the airframe, engine, and propeller logbooks.

Because of this, we put the entries in all the logbooks. Is it required? I'd say no but that isn't what the local guys want to see.
Click to expand...

The local DPE sent a student back from a PPL practical because the log did not contain the annual Sign offs. I went thru this same thing with him. after a call to FSDO he saw the light. student got a ride.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top